DOCSLIB.ORG

Development of Howell's Spineflower (Chorizanthe Howellii)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Development of Howell's Spineflower (Chorizanthe Howellii) Final Performance Report California Department of Fish and Game 1. State: California Grant number: E-2-P-23 Grant name: 2003 Threatened and Endangered Plants Project number and name: EP03-7: Development of Howell’s spineflower (Chorizanthe howellii) habitat restoration and recovery strategy involving iceplant removal, MacKerricher State Park, Mendocino County, CA 2. Report Period: July 1, 2006 to March 31, 2007 Report due date: May 17, 2007 Report received by USFWS date_______ 3. Location of work (Include the county; if statewide don’t list districts and counties; coordination activities can be listed as the office location): MacKerricher State Park, Mendocino County, CA 4. Costs: Please identify sources of federal and no-federal match and indicate amounts budgeted and spend for each. Indicate if match is in-kind. Indicate in the table whether costs are “Actual” or “Estimated”. Fund source Budgeted Actual Amount Spent Federal: USFWS 29,000 State: California Other:_________ Other:_________ Total Federal: 29,000 Total Match: 9,667 Total Project: 33,773 5. Objectives: (list project objectives from grant proposal or grant agreement): Conduct historical research on iceplant distribution and growth rate within the park. Map current distribution of iceplant; enter into GIS layer and overlay on spineflower distribution; select 20 or more potential iceplant removal sites representing varying distances from spineflower colonies and environmental conditions. Complete Section 106 NHPA clearance for removal sites. Establish permanent monitoring plots and conduct initial photodocumentation and monitoring, to include characterization of soils, physical factors, species composition and structure both within and surrounding the removal areas. Conduct manual removal of iceplant. Conduct post removal annual monitoring for 3 field seasons to document reoccupation of removal areas. Summarize results in report, and make recommendations regarding utilization of iceplant removal in long term management of spineflower. 6. If the work in this grant was part of a larger undertaking with other components and funding, present a brief overview of the larger activity and the role of this project. n/a 7. Describe how the objectives were met. See attachment 1 for additional requirements. Please see attached report 8. Discuss differences between work anticipated in grant proposal and grant agreement, and that actually carried out with Federal Aid grant funds; include differences between expected and actual costs. n/a 9. List any publications or in-house reports resulting from this work. Provide citations, including status (indicate if not completed), note any that are included with this report, and note where reports or publications may be obtained. None completed to date. Name, title, phone number, and e-mail address of person compiling this report: Mary Ann Showers Habitat Conservation Planning Branch [email protected] 916-651-6594 Development of a Restoration Strategy for Howell’s Spineflower MacKerricher State Park Progress Report May 2007 by Peter J. Warner Environmental Scientist California State Parks Mendocino District Project Update (May 2007) Since the 2006 report, the only project activity has involved plot maintenance (removal of scattered iceplant seedlings) and the production and presentation of the project and pertinent data to a State Parks resources training in January 2007. Introduction This report summarizes the results of a study intended to provide data in support of the development of a strategy for the recolonization of suitable habitat by Howell’s spineflower (Chorizanthe howellii - ST/FE), an annual plant that grows almost entirely within MacKerricher State Park, north of Ft. Bragg, California. The study was funded by the U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service under Section 6 Grant E-2-P-23, and administered by the California Dept. of Fish & Game under Contract number P0330013. The project has been implemented by the Calif. Dept. of Parks & Recreation, Mendocino District. As of October 2005, all grant funds had been expended. State Parks has continued funding the project for maintenance and data collection activities, and intends to continue doing so indefinitely. The report provides a methods section, study results, and a discussion section that interprets the data and provides an interim analysis of their significance. This section also includes a brief summary of strategic issues and management options. A project description, including discussions of the ecosystem, the plant community, Howell’s spineflower, and other details, developed prior to project implementation, provides introductory information and is appended to this report. Methods To address the potential for recolonization by Howell’s spineflower following a manual iceplant removal regimen, State Parks staff established twenty-five 50m2 plots, each within spineflower habitat and each with at least 50% iceplant cover, between Lake Cleone and the south end of the Ten Mile Dunes at MacKerricher State Park in winter 2004-05. We did not purposefully incorporate slope aspect or pitch as variables, although plot topography ranges from concave swale bottoms to convex dune tops, with most aspects either S- to SW- or N-facing. On each plot, we established five 1m2 quadrats, representing 10% of the total area of each plot, in a regular array (i.e., quadrats were not randomly situated, instead consistently located on all plots). Data collected prior to iceplant removal and once during each of the two following spring seasons included cover by plant species and other types of surface material (e.g., bare sand, 1 litter). Data were recorded in one of six categories for estimating cover on entire plots: Category 1 = 0-1; Cat. 2 = 1-5; Cat. 3 = 5-25; Cat. 4 = 25-50; Cat. 5 = 50-75; and Cat. 6 = 75-100%. We also estimated cover by plant species or other ground cover to the nearest 1% on each of the five quadrats on each plot. We estimated both cover category values on plots and percentage cover values on quadrats visually; on quadrats we used a 1m2 frame sectioned into 1/100m2 squares to assist in estimating cover to the nearest 1%. In addition, we counted the numbers of spineflower plants on quadrats, and estimated spineflower numbers on each 50m2 plot. Following the compilation of pre-treatment data, State Parks staff removed all iceplant by hand in January 2005. On even-numbered plots (n=12), we removed bulk organic litter in February 2005. This treatment was essentially a litter layer reduction; most plots retained a shallow (<1cm depth) litter layer after bulk removal. We left all plant litter (minus the just-removed iceplant remains) on odd-numbered plots (n=13). During data collection visits in May 2005 and June 2006, and during plot maintenance in January 2006, we removed all observed iceplant that had germinated or otherwise regrown onto plots. Photo-documentation We photographed all plots 1) prior to iceplant removal, 2) following the litter removal process, and during data compilation in 3) May 2005 and 4) June 2006. Each plot was photographed from just outside each plot corner looking diagonally across the plot, and labeled corresponding to the nearest cardinal direction for that corner and by month-year photographed. These photographs are available upon request. Statistical Compilation I compiled all data collected into an Excel spreadsheet, arranged by plots, quadrats, species, other ground cover types, and physical data (slope, exposure, etc.). Each observed plant species has been designated native or non-native; any taxon not identified to a level sufficient to determine native status were left out of computations. To date, I’ve attempted no statistical analyses other than computing simple means and proportions among species, and between groups, litter treatments, and years. Thus, all results shown below are based on raw data and basic spreadsheet computations. Cover category values are not quantitatively accurate, and are used generally to assess relative cover over multiple samples over a relatively broad area. These values were only employed on the 50m2 plots, not on the 1m2 quadrats. I’ve used computations derived from cover category values here mostly to illustrate general patterns of relative cover and species dominance; these data will not be used at this time for determining statistical significance of any treatments. Preliminary Results Iceplant cover dropped precipitously following initial removal: from an average cover category of 5.8 (out of maximum value of 6) and a mean cover on quadrats of 81.6%, prior to removal to an average cover category value of 0.9 on plots and 0.24% on quadrats in May 2005 (Photos 1, 2, and 3). In June of 2006, the average cover category value of iceplant cover was 0.84, and the cover on quadrats was 0.03%. Prior to iceplant removal (January 2005), we observed at least one spineflower plant on 7 of the 25 plots, with the spineflower cover on each of those 7 plots in category 1 (0-1%). By May 2005, this count had increased to 12 plots with spineflower (an estimated 369 plants in total), with 2 spineflower cover in category 2 (between 1 and 5%) on 3 plots (Photos 4, 5, and 6). In early June 2006, 21 plots had at least one spineflower plant; on 3 plots spineflower cover had increased to category 4 (over 25%); spineflower plants on many 50m2 plots had grown too numerous to count individually. On the 125 quadrats within those 25 plots, spineflower cover averaged virtually zero (less than 0.1%) prior to iceplant removal; the total number of plants was 54. By May 2005, spineflower cover on quadrats had increased to a mean of 0.24% with 108 plants accounting for that cover. In June 2006, spineflower cover had reached an average of 2.7% on quadrats by virtue of 758 plants counted. In May 2005, as measured on quadrats (n=60), spineflower cover on litter-removal plots averaged 0.4%, whereas on littered quadrats (n=65), the mean for this measure was 0.3%.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Checklist of the Vascular Plants of Redwood National Park
    Humboldt State University Digital Commons @ Humboldt State University Botanical Studies Open Educational Resources and Data 9-17-2018 Checklist of the Vascular Plants of Redwood National Park James P. Smith Jr Humboldt State University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.humboldt.edu/botany_jps Part of the Botany Commons Recommended Citation Smith, James P. Jr, "Checklist of the Vascular Plants of Redwood National Park" (2018). Botanical Studies. 85. https://digitalcommons.humboldt.edu/botany_jps/85 This Flora of Northwest California-Checklists of Local Sites is brought to you for free and open access by the Open Educational Resources and Data at Digital Commons @ Humboldt State University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Botanical Studies by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Humboldt State University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A CHECKLIST OF THE VASCULAR PLANTS OF THE REDWOOD NATIONAL & STATE PARKS James P. Smith, Jr. Professor Emeritus of Botany Department of Biological Sciences Humboldt State Univerity Arcata, California 14 September 2018 The Redwood National and State Parks are located in Del Norte and Humboldt counties in coastal northwestern California. The national park was F E R N S established in 1968. In 1994, a cooperative agreement with the California Department of Parks and Recreation added Del Norte Coast, Prairie Creek, Athyriaceae – Lady Fern Family and Jedediah Smith Redwoods state parks to form a single administrative Athyrium filix-femina var. cyclosporum • northwestern lady fern unit. Together they comprise about 133,000 acres (540 km2), including 37 miles of coast line. Almost half of the remaining old growth redwood forests Blechnaceae – Deer Fern Family are protected in these four parks.
    [Show full text]
  • Seed Evolution: Parental Conflicts in a Multi-Generational Household
    Zurich Open Repository and Archive University of Zurich Main Library Strickhofstrasse 39 CH-8057 Zurich www.zora.uzh.ch Year: 2014 Seed evolution: parental conflicts in a multi-generational household Pires, Nuno D Abstract: Seeds are multi-generational structures containing a small embryonic plant enclosed in layers of diverse parental origins. The evolution of seeds was a pinnacle in an evolutionary trend towards a progressive retention of embryos and gametes within parental tissue. This strategy, which dates back to the first land plants, allowed an increased protection and nourishing of the developing embryo. Flowering plants took parental control one step further with the evolution of a biparental endosperm that derives from a second parallel fertilization event. The endosperm directly nourishes the developing embryo and allows not only the maternal genes, but also paternal genes, to play an active role during seed development. The appearance of an endosperm set the conditions for the manifestation of conflicts of interest between maternal and paternal genomes over the allocation of resources to the developing embryos. As a consequence, a dynamic balance was established between maternal and paternal gene dosage in the endosperm, and maintaining a correct balance became essential to ensure a correct seed development. This balance was achieved in part by changes in the genetic constitution of the endosperm and through epigenetic mechanisms that allow a differential expression of alleles depending on their parental origin. This review discusses the evolutionary steps that resulted in the appearance of seeds and endosperm, and the epigenetic and genetic mechanisms that allow a harmonious coinhabitance of multiple generations within a single seed.
    [Show full text]
  • Terrestrial and Marine Biological Resource Information
    APPENDIX C Terrestrial and Marine Biological Resource Information Appendix C1 Resource Agency Coordination Appendix C2 Marine Biological Resources Report APPENDIX C1 RESOURCE AGENCY COORDINATION 1 The ICF terrestrial biological team coordinated with relevant resource agencies to discuss 2 sensitive biological resources expected within the terrestrial biological study area (BSA). 3 A summary of agency communications and site visits is provided below. 4 California Department of Fish and Wildlife: On July 30, 2020, ICF held a conference 5 call with Greg O’Connell (Environmental Scientist) and Corianna Flannery (Environmental 6 Scientist) to discuss Project design and potential biological concerns regarding the 7 Eureka Subsea Fiber Optic Cables Project (Project). Mr. O’Connell discussed the 8 importance of considering the western bumble bee. Ms. Flannery discussed the 9 importance of the hard ocean floor substrate and asked how the cable would be secured 10 to the ocean floor to reduce or eliminate scour. The western bumble bee has been 11 evaluated in the Biological Resources section of the main document, and direct and 12 indirect impacts are avoided. The Project Description describes in detail how the cable 13 would be installed on the ocean floor, the importance of the hard bottom substrate, and 14 the need for avoidance. 15 Consultation Outcomes: 16 • The Project was designed to avoid hard bottom substrate, and RTI Infrastructure 17 (RTI) conducted surveys of the ocean floor to ensure that proper routing of the 18 cable would occur. 19 • Ms. Flannery will be copied on all communications with the National Marine 20 Fisheries Service 21 California Department of Fish and Wildlife: On August 7, 2020, ICF held a conference 22 call with Greg O’Connell to discuss a site assessment and survey approach for the 23 western bumble bee.
    [Show full text]
  • Fort Ord Natural Reserve Plant List
    UCSC Fort Ord Natural Reserve Plants Below is the most recently updated plant list for UCSC Fort Ord Natural Reserve. * non-native taxon ? presence in question Listed Species Information: CNPS Listed - as designated by the California Rare Plant Ranks (formerly known as CNPS Lists). More information at http://www.cnps.org/cnps/rareplants/ranking.php Cal IPC Listed - an inventory that categorizes exotic and invasive plants as High, Moderate, or Limited, reflecting the level of each species' negative ecological impact in California. More information at http://www.cal-ipc.org More information about Federal and State threatened and endangered species listings can be found at https://www.fws.gov/endangered/ (US) and http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/nongame/ t_e_spp/ (CA). FAMILY NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME LISTED Ferns AZOLLACEAE - Mosquito Fern American water fern, mosquito fern, Family Azolla filiculoides ? Mosquito fern, Pacific mosquitofern DENNSTAEDTIACEAE - Bracken Hairy brackenfern, Western bracken Family Pteridium aquilinum var. pubescens fern DRYOPTERIDACEAE - Shield or California wood fern, Coastal wood wood fern family Dryopteris arguta fern, Shield fern Common horsetail rush, Common horsetail, field horsetail, Field EQUISETACEAE - Horsetail Family Equisetum arvense horsetail Equisetum telmateia ssp. braunii Giant horse tail, Giant horsetail Pentagramma triangularis ssp. PTERIDACEAE - Brake Family triangularis Gold back fern Gymnosperms CUPRESSACEAE - Cypress Family Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey cypress CNPS - 1B.2, Cal IPC
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Resources Report City of Fort Bragg Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrade
    BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES REPORT CITY OF FORT BRAGG WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT UPGRADE 101 West Cypress Street (APN 008-020-07) Fort Bragg Mendocino County, California prepared by: William Maslach [email protected] August 2016 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES REPORT CITY OF FORT BRAGG WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT UPGRADE 101 WEST CYPRESS STREET (APN 008-020-07) FORT BRAGG MENDOCINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA PREPARED FOR: Scott Perkins Associate Planner City of Fort Bragg 416 North Franklin Street Fort Bragg, California PREPARED BY: William Maslach 32915 Nameless Lane Fort Bragg, California (707) 732-3287 [email protected] Contents Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... iv 1 Introduction and Background ............................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Purpose ......................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Scope of Work ............................................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Location & Environmental Setting ................................................................................................ 1 1.4 Land Use ........................................................................................................................................ 2 1.5 Site Directions ..............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Species at Risk Assessment—Pacific Rim National Park Reserve Of
    Species at Risk Assessment—Pacific Rim National Park Reserve of Canada Prepared for Parks Canada Agency by Conan Webb 3rd May 2005 2 Contents 0.1 Acknowledgments . 10 1 Introduction 11 1.1 Background Information . 11 1.2 Objective . 16 1.3 Methods . 17 2 Species Reports 20 2.1 Sample Species Report . 21 2.2 Amhibia (Amphibians) . 23 2.2.1 Bufo boreas (Western toad) . 23 2.2.2 Rana aurora (Red-legged frog) . 29 2.3 Aves (Birds) . 37 2.3.1 Accipiter gentilis laingi (Queen Charlotte goshawk) . 37 2.3.2 Ardea herodias fannini (Pacific Great Blue heron) . 43 2.3.3 Asio flammeus (Short-eared owl) . 49 2.3.4 Brachyramphus marmoratus (Marbled murrelet) . 51 2.3.5 Columba fasciata (Band-tailed pigeon) . 59 2.3.6 Falco peregrinus (Peregrine falcon) . 61 2.3.7 Fratercula cirrhata (Tufted puffin) . 65 2.3.8 Glaucidium gnoma swarthi (Northern pygmy-owl, swarthi subspecies ) . 67 2.3.9 Megascops kennicottii kennicottii (Western screech-owl, kennicottii subspecies) . 69 2.3.10 Phalacrocorax penicillatus (Brandt’s cormorant) . 73 2.3.11 Ptychoramphus aleuticus (Cassin’s auklet) . 77 2.3.12 Synthliboramphus antiquus (Ancient murrelet) . 79 2.3.13 Uria aalge (Common murre) . 83 2.4 Bivalvia (Oysters; clams; scallops; mussels) . 87 2.4.1 Ostrea conchaphila (Olympia oyster) . 87 2.5 Gastropoda (Snails; slugs) . 91 2.5.1 Haliotis kamtschatkana (Northern abalone) . 91 2.5.2 Hemphillia dromedarius (Dromedary jumping-slug) . 95 2.6 Mammalia (Mammals) . 99 2.6.1 Cervus elaphus roosevelti (Roosevelt elk) . 99 2.6.2 Enhydra lutris (Sea otter) .
    [Show full text]
  • Antioxidant Properties of Mesembryanthemum Crystallinum and Carpobrotus Edulis Extracts
    Asian Journal of Chemistry Vol. 21, No. 1 (2009), 549-559 Antioxidant Properties of Mesembryanthemum crystallinum and Carpobrotus edulis Extracts I. BOUFTIRA*†, C. ABDELLY† and S. SFAR Laboratory of Galenic Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy of Monastir Rue Ibn Sina 5000 Monastir, Tunisia Fax: (216)73461830; Tel: (216)73461000; E-mail: [email protected] Extraction efficiency using different solvents on antioxi- dant capacities of Mesembryanthemum crystallinum and Carpobrotus edulis was measured. The dried extracts were screened for their radical scavenging activity using α,α-diphenyl- β-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) method. The order of antioxidant capacity of M. crystallinum in different solvents was found to be petroleum ether > ethyl acetate > chloroform > methanol > flavonoids and water. The order of antioxidant capacity of C. edulis was found to be flavonoids > methanol > chloroform > water and petroleum ether. Petroleum ether and flavonoids extracts from M. crystallinum and C. edulis showed highest antioxidant activity at 500 µg/mL. Results of the present study may be due to the extent of antioxidant capacity of each extract is in accordance with the amount of chrolophylls, carotenoids, phenolics and others different antioxidant compounds that can be presents in the extracts. Key Words: Antioxidant activity, DPPH, Aizoacea, Extra- ction methods, Flavonoids. INTRODUCTION Reactive oxygen species (ROS) are involved in the organism's vital activities including phagocytosis, regulation of cell proliferation, intracell- ular signalling and synthesis of biologically active compounds and ATP1. With an insufficiency of the antioxidant protective system or under an intense influence of radical-initiating factors (ionizing radiation, hard ultraviolet radiation, xenobiotics, mineral dust), ROS are overproduced and oxidative stress develops.
    [Show full text]
  • Northern Coastal Scrub and Coastal Prairie
    GRBQ203-2845G-C07[180-207].qxd 12/02/2007 05:01 PM Page 180 Techbooks[PPG-Quark] SEVEN Northern Coastal Scrub and Coastal Prairie LAWRENCE D. FORD AND GREY F. HAYES INTRODUCTION prairies, as shrubs invade grasslands in the absence of graz- ing and fire. Because of the rarity of these habitats, we are NORTHERN COASTAL SCRUB seeing increasing recognition and regulation of them and of Classification and Locations the numerous sensitive species reliant on their resources. Northern Coastal Bluff Scrub In this chapter, we describe historic and current views on California Sagebrush Scrub habitat classification and ecological dynamics of these ecosys- Coyote Brush Scrub tems. As California’s vegetation ecologists shift to a more Other Scrub Types quantitative system of nomenclature, we suggest how the Composition many different associations of dominant species that make up Landscape Dynamics each of these systems relate to older classifications. We also Paleohistoric and Historic Landscapes propose a geographical distribution of northern coastal scrub Modern Landscapes and coastal prairie, and present information about their pale- Fire Ecology ohistoric origins and landscapes. A central concern for describ- Grazers ing and understanding these ecosystems is to inform better Succession stewardship and conservation. And so, we offer some conclu- sions about the current priorities for conservation, informa- COASTAL PRAIRIE tion about restoration, and suggestions for future research. Classification and Locations California Annual Grassland Northern Coastal Scrub California Oatgrass Moist Native Perennial Grassland Classification and Locations Endemics, Near-Endemics, and Species of Concern Conservation and Restoration Issues Among the many California shrub vegetation types, “coastal scrub” is appreciated for its delightful fragrances AREAS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH and intricate blooms that characterize the coastal experi- ence.
    [Show full text]
  • Monographs of Invasive Plants in Europe: Carpobrotus Josefina G
    Monographs of invasive plants in Europe: Carpobrotus Josefina G. Campoy, Alicia T. R. Acosta, Laurence Affre, R Barreiro, Giuseppe Brundu, Elise Buisson, L Gonzalez, Margarita Lema, Ana Novoa, R Retuerto, et al. To cite this version: Josefina G. Campoy, Alicia T. R. Acosta, Laurence Affre, R Barreiro, Giuseppe Brundu, etal.. Monographs of invasive plants in Europe: Carpobrotus. Botany Letters, Taylor & Francis, 2018, 165 (3-4), pp.440-475. 10.1080/23818107.2018.1487884. hal-01927850 HAL Id: hal-01927850 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01927850 Submitted on 11 Apr 2019 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. ARTICLE Monographs of invasive plants in Europe: Carpobrotus Josefina G. Campoy a, Alicia T. R. Acostab, Laurence Affrec, Rodolfo Barreirod, Giuseppe Brundue, Elise Buissonf, Luís Gonzálezg, Margarita Lemaa, Ana Novoah,i,j, Rubén Retuerto a, Sergio R. Roiload and Jaime Fagúndez d aDepartment of Functional Biology, Area of Ecology, Faculty of Biology, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain; bDipartimento
    [Show full text]
  • Vegetation Classification and Mapping Project Report
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Lewis and Clark National Historic Park Vegetation Classification and Mapping Project Report Natural Resource Report NPS/NCCN/NRR—2012/597 ON THE COVER Benson Beach, Cape Disappointment State Park Photograph by: Lindsey Koepke Wise Lewis and Clark National Historic Park Vegetation Classification and Mapping Project Report Natural Resource Report NPS/NCCN/NRR—2012/597 James S. Kagan, Eric M. Nielsen, Matthew D. Noone, Jason C. van Warmerdam, and Lindsey K. Wise Oregon Biodiversity Information Center Institute for Natural Resources – Portland Portland State University P.O. Box 751 Portland, OR 97207 Gwen Kittel NatureServe 4001 Discovery Dr., Suite 2110 Boulder, CO 80303 Catharine Copass National Park Service North Coast and Cascades Network Olympic National Park 600 E. Park Avenue Port Angeles, WA 98362 December 2012 U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Fort Collins, Colorado The National Park Service, Natural Resource Stewardship and Science office in Fort Collins, Colorado, publishes a range of reports that address natural resource topics. These reports are of interest and applicability to a broad audience in the National Park Service and others in natural resource management, including scientists, conservation and environmental constituencies, and the public. The Natural Resource Report Series is used to disseminate high-priority, current natural resource management information with managerial application. The series targets a general, diverse audience, and may contain NPS policy considerations or address sensitive issues of management applicability. All manuscripts in the series receive the appropriate level of peer review to ensure that the information is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended audience, and designed and published in a professional manner.
    [Show full text]
  • Vascular Plants of Humboldt Bay's Dunes and Wetlands Published by U.S
    Vascular Plants of Humboldt Bay's Dunes and Wetlands Published by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service G. Leppig and A. Pickart and California Department of Fish Game Release 4.0 June 2014* www.fws.gov/refuge/humboldt_bay/ Habitat- Habitat - Occurs on Species Status Occurs within Synonyms Common name specific broad Lanphere- Jepson Manual (2012) (see codes at end) refuge (see codes at end) (see codes at end) Ma-le'l Units UD PW EW Adoxaceae Sambucus racemosa L. red elderberry RF, CDF, FS X X N X X Aizoaceae Carpobrotus chilensis (Molina) sea fig DM X E X X N.E. Br. Carpobrotus edulis ( L.) N.E. Br. Iceplant DM X E, I X Alismataceae lanceleaf water Alisma lanceolatum With. FM X E plantain northern water Alisma triviale Pursh FM X N plantain Alliaceae three-cornered Allium triquetrum L. FS, FM, DM X X E leek Allium unifolium Kellogg one-leaf onion CDF X N X X Amaryllidaceae Amaryllis belladonna L. belladonna lily DS, AW X X E Narcissus pseudonarcissus L. daffodil AW, DS, SW X X E X Anacardiaceae Toxicodendron diversilobum Torrey poison oak CDF, RF X X N X X & A. Gray (E. Greene) Apiaceae Angelica lucida L. seacoast angelica BM X X N, C X X Anthriscus caucalis M. Bieb bur chevril DM X E Cicuta douglasii (DC.) J. Coulter & western water FM X N Rose hemlock Conium maculatum L. poison hemlock RF, AW X I X Daucus carota L. Queen Anne's lace AW, DM X X I X American wild Daucus pusillus Michaux DM, SW X X N X X carrot Foeniculum vulgare Miller sweet fennel AW, FM, SW X X I X Glehnia littoralis (A.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Vegetation Communities of San Diego County
    DRAFT VEGETATION COMMUNITIES OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY Based on “Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California” prepared by Robert F. Holland, Ph.D. for State of California, The Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game (October 1986) Codes revised by Thomas Oberbauer (February 1996) Revised and expanded by Meghan Kelly (August 2006) Further revised and reorganized by Jeremy Buegge (March 2008) March 2008 Suggested citation: Oberbauer, Thomas, Meghan Kelly, and Jeremy Buegge. March 2008. Draft Vegetation Communities of San Diego County. Based on “Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California”, Robert F. Holland, Ph.D., October 1986. March 2008 Draft Vegetation Communities of San Diego County Introduction San Diego’s vegetation communities owe their diversity to the wide range of soil and climatic conditions found in the County. The County encompasses desert, mountainous and coastal conditions over a wide range of elevation, precipitation and temperature changes. These conditions provide niches for endemic species and a wide range of vegetation communities. San Diego County is home to over 200 plant and animal species that are federally listed as rare, endangered, or threatened. The preservation of this diversity of species and habitats is important for the health of ecosystem functions, and their economic and intrinsic values. In order to effectively classify the wide variety of vegetation communities found here, the framework developed by Robert Holland in 1986 has been added to and customized for San Diego County. To supplement the original Holland Code, additions were made by Thomas Oberbauer in 1996 to account for unique habitats found in San Diego and to account for artificial habitat features (i.e., 10,000 series).
    [Show full text]